apple is just a little cry baby, who doesn't want to share his toys with other guys.
PATENTLY APPLE

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadbloc

What a dumb patent.

I can't believe I had to get to the bottom of these comments to find the two most intelligent posts.

The most ridiculous comment so far, from what I can see, is the idea that this patent could force Samsung to "innovate" on a better way to deal with "page ends" or "edges." Besides the point that patents are anti-competitive and detrimental to innovation, where "anti-commons" are compiled, in the first place, how much innovation is really necessary in "page ends" anyway? Does it really benefit anyone to have a dozen different proprietary ways to execute "page ends" in interfaces? That's a bit like saying that we need a dozen different proprietary ways to stop a car, different basic braking mechanisms. Also, where is the consumer choice in a world where, if I want 4x4 on a vehicle, I can only get it from one manufacturer?

"Page ends" aren't nearly as important as other aspects of a phone but patents do not increase consumer choice, they stifle innovation by locking concepts away into anti-commons so they cannot be recycled and reformed into other newer interface systems. They also block out other smaller companies from getting into the market. I couldn't give two ***** about Samsung, personally, as they too utilize patents and lock out concepts and ideas. But patents do not increase innovation, they only allow massive corporations an environment through which they can sit back on their laurels, a disincentive to innovation if there ever was one. Apple is but the fantastic exception that proves the rule, they are that rare larger corporation still capable of innovation but they are far from an excuse for the current system.

All of that said, it's not Apple or Samsung who are broken, it is the system at large. Apple acts defensively, if they did not patent, others would and they would lock them up in expensive court battles regardless of who actually won (based on prior art etc). They exercise their patents as not doing so can have somewhat of the same effect. I get this all but most of the commenters here are acting as though Samsung is this terrible entity for "stealing" the work of others. As if a "concept" (a non-existent fictional representation of a mental entity) could be stolen.

"Page ends" aren't nearly as important as other aspects of a phone but patents do not increase consumer choice, they stifle innovation by locking concepts away into anti-commons so they cannot be recycled and reformed into other newer interface systems. They also block out other smaller companies from getting into the market. I couldn't give two ***** about Samsung, personally, as they too utilize patents and lock out concepts and ideas. But patents do not increase innovation, they only allow massive corporations an environment through which they can sit back on their laurels, a disincentive to innovation if there ever was one. Apple is but the fantastic exception that proves the rule, they are that rare larger corporation still capable of innovation but they are far from an excuse for the current system.

Why can't other companies innovate around patented technologies? By doing so, they'll be able to make a product that's potentially better than the existing product that uses the patented technology. If others can simply copy the patented technology with impunity, it would, in my opinion, result in nothing more than an unhealthy obsession with making a product cheaper. If other companies innovate around a patented technology, they can say that they're bringing something new to the table.

And if it weren't for patents, there would be no incentive to innovate. Why would anyone invest time and money into developing an idea only to watch others rip it off with impunity?

Why can't other companies innovate around patented technologies? By doing so, they'll be able to make a product that's potentially better than the existing product that uses the patented technology. If others can simply copy the patented technology with impunity, it would, in my opinion, result in nothing more than an unhealthy obsession with making a product cheaper. If other companies innovate around a patented technology, they can say that they're bringing something new to the table.

If the market calls for cheaper products, there will be incentive for companies to do so but there will still be a market for innovative high end products. That is how markets work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vvswarup

And if it weren't for patents, there would be no incentive to innovate. Why would anyone invest time and money into developing an idea only to watch others rip it off with impunity?

By that logic there was no innovation before the advent of government enforced patents. Yup, profits and the higher end of markets provide 0 incentive, you're so smart! Why hadn't I ever thought of that before?!

Let me leave you with the key part you are missing: patents increase the cost of research and development because companies have more incentive to keep any findings to themselves instead of creating research agreements and commons organizations.

A patent on breathing you say? I would like to license that under FRAND please - since it is truly essential to life, and $1 is a hugely inflated price. Also, I will see you in court to challenge whether I actually infringed on your "breathing" patent, since my way of breathing is just a little bit different, and I will be filling with the Patent Office to have your patent invalidated on grounds that I don't believe you can prove that you invented it. Welcome to the world of patents - even if you had legitimately invented breathing I would have so many ways to try to dodge your patent and cost you money defending it, it begs the question why would you invent at all when you can just replicate. Why indeed...

When I win, don't deliver my legal expenses to me in $0.05 coins: a bank transfer is necessary.

If the market calls for cheaper products, there will be incentive for companies to do so but there will still be a market for innovative high end products. That is how markets work.

But what good does it do if everyone's making the same thing with the only difference being price?

Quote:

By that logic there was no innovation before the advent of government enforced patents. Yup, profits and the higher end of markets provide 0 incentive, you're so smart! Why hadn't I ever thought of that before?!

Let me leave you with the key part you are missing: patents increase the cost of research and development because companies have more incentive to keep any findings to themselves instead of creating research agreements and commons organizations.

Why wouldn't any company want to keep their R&D to themselves? If a company spends millions of dollars on R&D for a product, why should it give it away to other companies? Why should it subsidize other companies' R&D?

But what good does it do if everyone's making the same thing with the only difference being price?

That is not what would happen though! Without patents there would be more competitors in the market, which means many of them would work to service niche markets, that means more differences and variety actually.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vvswarup

Why wouldn't any company want to keep their R&D to themselves? If a company spends millions of dollars on R&D for a product, why should it give it away to other companies? Why should it subsidize other companies' R&D?

You're putting the cart before the horse here, the only reason a company needs to put that much money into research and development instead of building off the research of others is because nobody else shares their own information. Patents encourage pockets of anti-commons and a lack of technological commons. If there were no patents, it would be a lot more expensive to keep research secret and that cost would become progressively more expensive the larger the company became. So companies would take up a dual strategy of A) keeping some more innovative things secret for as long as possible and B) joining joint research initiatives. A great example of such an initiative would be the "AIM" project that Apple took up with IBM and Motorola to create the PowerPC processors.

To argue that sharing research in technology limits innovation would be a bit like arguing that the sharing of research done by scientists in other fields of study is harmful to them. Nothing could be further from the truth. Furthermore, when a massive corporation "creates" a new innovation, what it actually entails is the composite energies of many people within that organization, which is no argument as to why the corporation (a fictional representative organization) should own it.

Let me give an example, take the "freer" POSIX world (GPL isn't really free, I know, but the BSD license is), BSD and Linux etc, they all share research and advancements but do all of the desktops on those systems look and act the same? In fact, I would argue that Windows desktops have far more in common with Mac desktops than Linux desktops have with each other. But I thought that sharing information would lead to everything being the same! Nope, the exact opposite is in fact true. Monopolist proprietary systems will always try to service the lowest common denominator, meaning they will be more similar than the interfaces available in a truly competitive diversified market where research can, variously and to different degrees, be shared without fear of legal and patent disputes.

That is not what would happen though! Without patents there would be more competitors in the market, which means many of them would work to service niche markets, that means more differences and variety actually.

You're putting the cart before the horse here, the only reason a company needs to put that much money into research and development instead of building off the research of others is because nobody else shares their own information. Patents encourage pockets of anti-commons and a lack of technological commons. If there were no patents, it would be a lot more expensive to keep research secret and that cost would become progressively more expensive the larger the company became. So companies would take up a dual strategy of A) keeping some more innovative things secret for as long as possible and B) joining joint research initiatives. A great example of such an initiative would be the "AIM" project that Apple took up with IBM and Motorola to create the PowerPC processors.

To argue that sharing research in technology limits innovation would be a bit like arguing that the sharing of research done by scientists in other fields of study is harmful to them. Nothing could be further from the truth. Furthermore, when a massive corporation "creates" a new innovation, what it actually entails is the composite energies of many people within that organization, which is no argument as to why the corporation (a fictional representative organization) should own it.

Let me give an example, take the "freer" POSIX world (GPL isn't really free, I know, but the BSD license is), BSD and Linux etc, they all share research and advancements but do all of the desktops on those systems look and act the same? In fact, I would argue that Windows desktops have far more in common with Mac desktops than Linux desktops have with each other. But I thought that sharing information would lead to everything being the same! Nope, the exact opposite is in fact true. Monopolist proprietary systems will always try to service the lowest common denominator, meaning they will be more similar than the interfaces available in a truly competitive diversified market where research can, variously and to different degrees, be shared without fear of legal and patent disputes.

Here's another way of looking at it; kind of like you signing up only to comment on this thread:

Microsoft signed up in 1975. Brought BASIC and developed DOS for the IBM PC
Apple signed up in 1976. Commercial personal computer, GUI
NEXT signed up in 1985. Brought rich developer environment to PC's
Linux signed up in 1991. Brought an open operating system.

Certainly, Linux is valued in the server environment. But it was late to the game, is still late to the game for desktops and while it is the basis of Android OS, which is somewhat more open, still has to play in an environment where IP rules play out.

Businesses create IP as they develop products for the market. It assures them a fair playing field where the benefits of their IP create financial rewards for them. The barrier to entry for small players is they have to license much of that IP to play, and it is expensive.

If Linux had been dominate in 1975, maybe things would have worked out differently, but that wasn't the case. More to the point, Linux has not been successful on tablets either, certainly pointing out that the free and open business model may not be well suited for creating disruptions in the consumer market.

[QUOTE=inaneframe;17475531]That is not what would happen though! Without patents there would be more competitors in the market, which means many of them would work to service niche markets, that means more differences and variety actually.

Quote:

You're putting the cart before the horse here, the only reason a company needs to put that much money into research and development instead of building off the research of others is because nobody else shares their own information. Patents encourage pockets of anti-commons and a lack of technological commons. If there were no patents, it would be a lot more expensive to keep research secret and that cost would become progressively more expensive the larger the company became. So companies would take up a dual strategy of A) keeping some more innovative things secret for as long as possible and B) joining joint research initiatives. A great example of such an initiative would be the "AIM" project that Apple took up with IBM and Motorola to create the PowerPC processors.

To argue that sharing research in technology limits innovation would be a bit like arguing that the sharing of research done by scientists in other fields of study is harmful to them. Nothing could be further from the truth. Furthermore, when a massive corporation "creates" a new innovation, what it actually entails is the composite energies of many people within that organization, which is no argument as to why the corporation (a fictional representative organization) should own it.

Research done by scientists in a university setting is academic research. At the end of the day, their goal is to get a paper published in Nature or some other prestigious publication. They're not in it to make money. Therefore, it's in their best interests to publicize and share their work. And even in academia, there are standards of ethical conduct. Just because scientists share work doesn't mean that they don't have to give credit to the original author. That way, one who uses another's work in a publication does not undeservedly get the accolades for it.

A corporation, on the other hand, is in it to make money. At a fundamental level, a corporation's activities are directed towards maximizing economic benefits to its owners. Sharing work amounts to subsidizing costs for other companies. Why should one corporation be expected to pay for R&D for everybody else? It's like the top student in a class being forced to allow others to copy his/her answers during an exam.

In a way, the requirement to give credit to the author when their work is cited is analogous to intellectual property protection (e.g. patents). In the former case, giving credit helps ensure that someone can't claim another's work as their own. Patents are designed to ensure that the fruits of one's labors in developing an innovative concept/idea flow to the person who expended those resources so that other can't simply use that concept without expending a fraction of the resources that the inventor has expended.

Quote:

Let me give an example, take the "freer" POSIX world (GPL isn't really free, I know, but the BSD license is), BSD and Linux etc, they all share research and advancements but do all of the desktops on those systems look and act the same? In fact, I would argue that Windows desktops have far more in common with Mac desktops than Linux desktops have with each other. But I thought that sharing information would lead to everything being the same! Nope, the exact opposite is in fact true. Monopolist proprietary systems will always try to service the lowest common denominator, meaning they will be more similar than the interfaces available in a truly competitive diversified market where research can, variously and to different degrees, be shared without fear of legal and patent disputes.

But no one is trying to make billions of dollars on BSD and Linux OS versions.

Here's how I would look at it. Let's say Company A comes out with a product, known as Product X, which helps customers accomplish a particular task. Product X goes on to sell like hotcakes and Company A makes billions of dollars.

Say there are no patents. Company A's competitors, seeing how successful Product X was, will come out with competing products and try to make the case that they're better than Product X. I think that without patents, those products will be similar to Company A. While there will be some variations, on a fundamental level, they're pretty much the same as Company A.

Let's say there were patents, and there was a patent that was vital to Product X. Competitors would not be able to make a competing product to Product X. But chances are that there is some competitor in there who would try to help customers accomplish the same task that Product X helps them accomplish, but in a way much better than Product X.

Take Windows PCs as an example. OEMs have been robbed of a way to differentiate their product from competitors. And I don't count a larger screen size or faster processor as differentiation. As a result, they have been reduced to competing on price. They're essentially spending their time coming up with ways of making cheaper PCs so they can sell them at a lower price and make a profit.